A good example of this kind of short-termism in action is the vanadium redox battery. It’s 100 per cent energy efficient, and as far as anyone can predict, infinitely rechargeable. It can be used for anything a conventional battery can be used for, and in large installations can store power station excess generation. Its efficiency means the total fuel expended producing power can be reduced, and there are major benefits for load-levelling. Both clearly very good things indeed. It’s also emission-free and uses green materials.

Unfortunately, developing the battery was never going to be quick. The UNSW team working on it couldn’t get funding because they wouldn’t be able to produce quick results. They had to work on it in their spare time, holidays and so on, while other less-important but shorter-term projects were funded. A triumph of accountancy and KPIs over good science and good sense.

And blue sky science does tend to be the stuff that makes the real innovations. Rutherford never thought splitting the atom would lead to the development of nuclear power. He was simply doing experimental physics – something the managerialist new order can’t, so won’t, ascribe a value to. He actually toasted the experiment’s success with the words “Here’s to the atom. May it never be of use to anyone”.

Something for the bean-counters to ponder, perhaps?

This is very, very, very true here in Australia.

“The speed and direction of this particular juggernaut can be seen in the financial results of our Banks. Together, they rip twenty billion dollars a year from their customers in the form of profits, but produce absolutely nothing of value. Yet every year they are congratulated by their peers for ‘producing a profit’. With values like this, research doesn't stand a prayer.”

Absolutely Pericles.

And therein lies the essence of the problem – the pandering of our government, and society, to the continuous growth paradigm and the profit motive.

How can independent research, especially research that is very likely to come to the conclusion that this sort of narrow future-destroying focus is…well, future-destroying…possibly hope to get funded??

In the minds of the economic rationalists, research that is not geared very closely to increasing productivity and hence profits and GDP, is a waste of tax-payer’s money, or more to the point, a waste of effort entirely.

What an awful catch 22! It is exactly this science lobby – the one that espouses the urgency of sustainability – that is desperately needed, to get us off this future-destroying path.

At least there is not total suppression – we do have Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute, Tim Flannery, Ian Lowe and perhaps a few others. But generally speaking the situation is dismal

Sajo “One problem with 'bean counters'….. Few have discovered the wonderful world of science or the arts and what could be achieved given the resources.”

I spent a year doing graphic design at Art College before I commenced on becoming an Accountant All the Accountants I know do more than just “count beans” and have interests beyond their chosen profession.

“Also accountants and economists generally have a problem with any project that takes ten years or more to show rewards.”

“Generalisations” are never a good bases for debate, however in this case

I worked in USA for a TV/Internet company. They had a plan which plotted a 7 year gap before positive cashflows. That was until they received the feedback from a focus group which halved the revenue expectation causing the cashflow to disappear completely.

The point, if you start with an assumption of a 10 years before something shows rewards, there is a certainty that you got something wrong and really the rewards will take longer.

Business is about achieving returns for investors and stake holders. Any business which plans to wait 10 years for a return is run by fools. If a deal is 10 years before it returns and you want to stay in business, you need to find a better investment alternative. Ask the old board of BHP – they invested in non-returning projects and it cost them dearly.

Anyone with an idea needs to do the following

1: Sell it to an investor on its “competitive merits”.
2: Show that they it is not throwing money down the toilet
3: Remember, what you consider as your “pet” is only an investment opportunity to others and they want Security as well as Return (names like Tri-Continental, Enron, HIH spring to mind).
4: You are asking them to take a risk on you.

Would you prefer your superannuation funds (a source of investment capital) to be invested in an organisation which respects your expectation for security with a financial return for risk or would you like them to gamble with your retirement funds at the race track?

Col Rouge - your approach only works after ideas have already been formulated and developed to the point where it is reasonably certain that a profit will be forthcoming in a defined timeframe. Companies are always enthusiastic to make money out of someone elses good idea. They are just not so keen on funding the basic research. Someone has to come up with the ideas in the first instance which is where the problem lies - we desperately need to provide the resources and opportunities for innovation and discovery. In the past companies could rely upon Universities and government research institutes to provide the ideas. However this just is not happening here in Australia any more. Scientists in both public and private sectors are funded only for short term projects with very specific objectives and do not have either the time or resources to develop their ideas outside those objectives. In fact the very people who have the skills and ability to do basic research are leaving Australia in droves.

It is a very sad time for Australian science. Fortunately some other countries still understand what is required so we will at least be able to benefit from them - we will however have to bear the cost

Sajo “your approach only works after ideas have already been formulated and developed”

WRONG.

Someone might have an idea which they think might be a “winner”

What should they do?

Find the reason for pursuing the goal/dream/invention because they feel "passionately" about it as well as believing it it is commercially viable.

Expect to experience some degree of discomfort. Such as

A spending hours in research and development.
B Pursuing one solution only to abandon it for a better alternative.
C being considered eccentric / weird by their family and friends.
D spending money to develop the idea in its prototype stages.
E Having the passion to continue because you can see that much further than others.

“Employees” are employed to develop what the employer will eventually own. In this context, academics are employees of universities or CSIRO or other institutions.

Employees don’t get to share the reward available to the true entrepreneur but of course they do not take the same risks.

Entrepreneurial Development of ideas is not about a cosy job in academia where the mortgage payments are assured. It is more about going out on a limb, making the mortgage payments on a creditcard, if need be, because you have faith in what you are doing.

And when you have it to a stage of commercial viability, deciding how you will produce it and deliver it to market. At this stage you might seek the investor who I spoke of in my first post.

I have just spent 4 years going through all of A to E above. Then I came across someone who was pursuing a similar goal. We have put our individual products into a single company. Because of our different backgrounds he deals with some aspect of the business and I deal with others. Our first customer presentation left us selling two products plus ancillary equipment (and not just the one we went to present).

We know how large our market is. We know the products we have “add value” and will be commercially / economically successful.

Otherwise, why would we bother?